NRA endorses incumbent liberal Democrat

[OldCannon]

...in spite of the fact that the challenger was a very pro-RKBA challenger....

http://www.markhillman.com/2010/09/19/n ... ur-rights/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have not personally verified the "truthiness" of the story, but I'm seeing a lot of friends in Colorado that are hopping mad about this.

[dicion]

Hmm...

This could actually make sense... think of it this way.

If the other guy, pro RKBA wins.... win for us.
If she wins.... she 'owes' the NRA a 'favor' for endorsing her campaign. Not a win, but the best possible 'loss'

This way, whoever wins, is either pro-RKBA, or owes the NRA a favor that will be collected upon at an important time.

I'm pretty sure they know that simply endorsing one or the other won't actually make a difference in who wins... so why not endorse the one you don't want to win, so you can collect on it later.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm not going to spend any time explaining NRA's "friendly incombant" policy again. BTW, Mr. Hillman is absolutely wrong about Reid and I'm sure he was most upset when he couldn't bash the NRA over the Senator from Nevada.

Chas.

[tomneal]

I am a single issue voter.
AND
I want ALL political parties to view the 2nd Amendment the same way I do.

That means from time to time, I will support Democrats running for office because
- they are incumbents
- they have voted PRO-2nd Amendment and I want them to continue

[Ashlar]

Poor Mister Hillman. He really doesn't understand how any single-issue advocacy group works.

[bdickens]

The NRA is a single-issue organization.

[hirundo82]

The reason that the NRA often endorses incumbents with pro-gun voting records over challengers who are also pro-gun is that seniority also matters. It is how committee chairs are assigned, and the committee chairs have a large influence over what bills make it to a vote. This was obvious in the last Texas legislative session due to some important bills not getting a vote due to getting stalled in committee.

If the Republicans don't win the Senate but Harry Reid is defeated, that means a change in the Senate majority leader. Reid may not be good in many other areas, but he has been a solid pro-gun vote and has helped push several pro-gun issues to a vote (especially national park carry and national reciprocity). If he were to lose, the majority leader would likely be Chuck Schumer (D-NY) or Dick Durbin (D-IL). Both have been anti-gun leaders in the Senate and becoming the majority leader would lead to opportunities for significant mischief, such as inserting anti-gun amendments into unrelated bills (since senators don't read the legislation they are voting on) and assigning pro-gun bills to committees unlikely to look on them favorably.

There's a new article by David Kopel, a leading Second Amendment scholar, out today which does a lot to explain this.

Thus, a Republican gain of less than 10 seats, coupled with the defeat of Harry Reid, could leave Second Amendment rights in the Senate in a worse position than today. The good news is that, unless the President decides to invest significant political capital, there would be little chance for passage of anti-gun legislation.

It is worth reading in full due to the fact that it handicaps all the Senate races from a Second Amendment perspective.